CHAPTER TWENTY TWO

ISLAMIC LAW
Islam’s basic objective in interpersonal relations is precisely that of Jesus and the other prophets: brotherly love. The distinctive thing about
Islam is not its ideal but the detailed proposals it sets forth for achieving it. If Jesus had had a longer career, or if mankind had been
sufficiently advanced to absorb more in the way of refinements, he would have placed his ideas on a more systematic basis. As it was, “the
work of Jesus was left unfinished.” It was reserved for another Teacher to systematize the laws of morality.
Islam, it is often said, is a religion of law. Among all the expressions of Islamic piety, law is the most characteristic. The central place of the
law in Islamic thought and religious life stems from the fundamental nature of the Islamic experience itself. Perhaps the most important
word in the entire religious vocabulary of Muslims is guidance. It was guidance which the Quran brought from on high, and guidance
which the prophet’s example and the tradition of the community elaborated and established. Guidance is above all what the Muslim expects
from religion, a series of specific directions for the conduct of life so that in no situation will there be doubt about the right way to act.
ISLAMIC LAW (SHARIAH) AND FIQH
There are two words for law in use among Muslims. (1) Shariah, the literal meaning of the term shariah is “the way to a watering-place”,
and since water is indispensable for all organic life, this term has in time come to denote a “system of laws”, both moral and practical,
which shows man the way towards spiritual fulfillment and social welfare: hence, “religious law” in the widest sense of the term. Shariah
is, thus, a designation for the eternal pattern that God has ordained for the universe, a kind of cosmic ideal that embodies the divine will. (2)
The other word, fiqh, comes from a verb meaning to understand, and refers to the human effort to translate the transcendental will of God
into specific rules. The fiqh means both the science of jurisprudence that derives rules of law from the source materials, and also the end
product of that science as written down in numerous thick volumes. Along with the Arabic language the fiqh constitutes the backbone of
traditional Muslim religious studies.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHARIAH AND WESTERN SYSTEMS OF LAW
In the classical form Shariah differs from Western systems of law in two principal respects.
COMPREHENSIVENESS (covenant with God and man)
In the first place scope of Shariah is much wider, since it regulates man’s relationship not only with his neighbors and with the state, which
is the limit of most legal systems, but also with his God and his own conscience. The shariah includes a great deal that for the modern
world has nothing to do with law. For instance, it regulates everything respecting religion, both belief and ritual. Theology is simply the
moral aspect of belief and thus, is technically a part of the shariah though it has developed into a semi-independent religious science. The
law also tells a Muslim when and how to perform their prayers, how to observe the fast of Ramadan, how much to pay in the way of alms,
and how to perform other religious duties. In the realm of more mundane affairs, the shariah prescribes the food permissible for a Muslim
to eat, the manner of acceptable dress, and even the forms of courtesy that lubricate social relations. There is also a large part of the shariah
that a modern person would understand as the concern of the law, such as rules governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, contractual
relations, commerce, and similar matters.
(5:1) O you who have attained to faith! Be true to your covenants! [The term “covenant” denotes a solemn undertaking or engagement
involving more than one party. The covenants referred to in this verse are of three kinds: the covenants between God and man (i.e., man’s
obligations towards God), between man and his own soul, and between the individual and his fellow-men - thus embracing the entire area
of man’s moral and social responsibilities. (1) Duties to God such as faith or recognition of existence of God (articles of Islamic faith) and a
practical duty to worship God and performing Hajj. (2) Duties to oneself: (a) duties of the soul, which involve developing skills and talent
through education (self-improvement). Education is a sacred duty of every Muslim. (b) Duties of the body, which involve partaking
wholesome food and not harming our bodies, as we might through gluttony or drunkenness and not killing oneself (suicide). (3) Duties to
other: (a) absolute duties are to treat people as equal, avoid wronging (nonmaleficence), the duty to compensate others when we harm them
(reparation) and the duty to recognize merit (justice). Promote the good of others (beneficence) and the duty to thank those who help us
(gratitude). (b) Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty to keep one’s promises
(fidelity).
Among the shariah’s characteristics is its comprehensiveness. It seeks to provide an all-inclusive measure for human conduct. No human
action, without exception, falls outside the purview of the law as something belonging to another sphere; rather the entirety of life is judged
from the standpoint of the divine pattern. All actions fall into one of five categories: obligatory (fard); meritorious or recommended
(mandub); permitted, i.e., neither good nor bad but neutral (mubah); reprehended, but not subject to punishment (makruh); and absolutely
forbidden under pain of punishment (haram). The result of this scheme is to bring all of life into a moral order in both its individual and its
social aspects.
ISLAMIC LAWS MOLD THE SOCIETY AND NOT VICE VERSA
The second major difference between the Shariah and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of law as the expression of
the divine will. The secular legal systems are based upon subjective considerations and grow out of society with changing circumstances.
On the other hand, the basic moral code of Shariah is objectively based on divine will and not subject to change with changing moral
values. In Islamic jurisprudence it is not society that moulds and fashion the laws, but the law that mould and fashion the society.
Looking at the difference between pre- and post-Islamic Arabia we are forced to ask whether history has ever witnessed a comparable
ethical advance among so many people in so short a time. Before Muhammad there was virtually no restraint on inter-tribal violence.
Glaring inequities in wealth and possession were accepted without conscience. Women were regarded more as possessions than as human
beings. Rather than say that a man could marry an unlimited number of wives, it would be more accurate to say that his relations with
women were so casual that beyond the first wife or two they scarcely approximated marriage at all. Child infanticide was common
especially among girls. Drunkenness and large-scale gambling was common. Within a half century there was effected a remarkable change
in the moral climate on each of these counts. If we ask what it was in Islam that enabled it to accomplish this near-miracle, we are brought
back to a point we have already remarked, namely, Islam’s explicitness. (The translation of the Quran is presented in bold letters and the
explanation in parentheses.)
(45:18-20) And, finally, [O Muhammad,] We have set you on a way by which the purpose [of faith] may be fulfilled: so you follow
this [way], and follow not the likes and dislikes of those who do not know [the truth]. [I.e., who are not - or not primarily - motivated
by God-consciousness and, hence, are swayed only by what they themselves regard as “right” in accordance with worldly, changing
circumstances.] Behold, they could never be of any avail to you if you were to defy the will of God - for, verily, such evildoers are but
friends and protectors of one another, whereas God is the Protector of all who are conscious of Him. This [revelation, then,] [I.e., the
Quran, which unfolds to man the purpose of all faith.] is a means of insight for mankind, and a guidance and grace unto people who
are endowed with inner certainty.
SOURCES OF ISLAMIC LAWS
Problems of jurisprudence were among the very earliest concerns of the young Islamic community. It was necessary to be precise about the
duties incumbent upon a Muslim, but a universally accepted method was lacking for applying, expanding, and detailing the guidance in the
Quran and the prophet’s life. In the first and second Islamic centuries a number of schools arose, each with a differing point of view, and
each locked in dispute with the others. This wide-ranging controversy over the principles to be used in deciding on the specific rules of law
was brought to an end by the work of al-Shafii (died AD 820), who won general acceptance for a jurisprudential theory that is still revered
by Muslims today. Al-Shafi worked out the theory of usul al-fiqh (roots or sources of the law). He argued that there are four usul which
stand in a definite order of rank.
(1) THE QURAN
First is the Quran, the word of God, whose clear commandments take precedence over all else. The Quran in addition to being a manual of
spiritual exercise is an immense body of moral and legal ordinance. But the Quran is in no sense a comprehensive legal code. About five
hundred of the Quranic verses are legalistic in tone and some eighty verses deal exclusively with legal topics.
(2) THE SUNNAH (God and Prophet final authority)
Second is the authentic Sunnah of the prophet transmitted in valid hadith. Sunnah may supplement Quranic injunctions but may never set
them aside. When Quranic laws are supplemented with only slightly less authoritative Hadith or tradition based on what Muhammad did or
said, we are not surprised to find Islam the most socially vocal of man’s enduring religions. Westerners who define religion in terms of
personal experience would never be understood by Muslims whose religion calls them to establish a yet explicit kind of social order. Faith
and politics, religion and society are inseparable in Islam.
The Hadith, which is the written record of the Sunnah, was not compiled until many years after the death of the Prophet. Those who
transcribed the Hadith did so by collecting the first-hand testimony of those who had lived with and observed the Prophet (his
“Companions”) and the second-hand testimony of the second and third generation followers of the original Companions. The human
element involved in narrating and interpreting the Prophet’s words and actions may have compromised the accuracy of some of the Hadith.
The accuracy of the Hadith can be compared to the Gospels, which were written down many years after the death of Jesus.
(33:36) Now whenever God and His Apostle have decided a matter, [I.e., whenever a specific law has been formulated as such in the
Quran or in an injunction promulgated by the Prophet.] it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice
insofar as they themselves are concerned: [I.e., to let their attitude or course of action be determined, not by the relevant law, but by their
personal interests or predilections.] for he who [thus] rebels against God and His Apostle has already, most obviously, gone astray.
(3) CONSENSUS (IJMA)
Failing to find what is needed in these two primary sources, the lawyer may turn to the consensus (ijma) of the community in the past.
According to the principle expressed in a famous hadith, ‘my community shall never agree in an error’, the agreement of the learned and
pious men in the past and the concurrence of the community, especially as expressed in practice, on any point is sufficient guide for an
assured basis of judgment. This principle is another indication of Islam’s traditionalist outlook, and has been of immense importance to the
life of the community.
(4) DEDUCTION BY ANALOGY (QIYAS)
The fourth source, analogical reasoning (qiyas), was to be used with great caution, and only when the appeal to the previous three sources
had proved fruitless. Qiyas was hedged about by very strict rules, and had always to be conducted in subjection to the other three precedent
principles. Most emphatically qiyas was not a means for introducing mere personal opinion, or speculation on legal problems. Al-Shafii, in
fact, devoted the major effort of his life to rescuing Islamic law from the arbitrariness of personal preference. (10:36) For, most of them
follow nothing but conjecture: [and,] behold, conjecture can never be a substitute for truth. Verily, God has full knowledge all that
they do. [Lit., “conjecture can in no wise make anyone independent of the truth”, i.e., of positive insight obtained through authentic
revelation to which the sequence relates. The people referred to here are the agnostics who waver between truth and falsehood. Some of the
great exponents of Islamic Law - foremost among them Ibn Hazm - base on this verse their rejection of qiyas (deduction by analogy) as a
means of eliciting religious laws which are supposedly “implied” in the wording of the Quran or of the Prophet’s teachings, but not clearly
laid down in terms of law. In his commentary on this verse, Razi thus sums up the above view: “They say that every deduction by analogy
is a conjectural process and is, therefore, of necessity, inadmissible (in matters pertaining to religion) - for ‘conjecture can never be a
substitute for truth’.” (See 5:101-102)]
(42:10) And on whatever you may differ, [O believers,] the verdict thereon rests with God. [Say, therefore:] “Such is God, my
Sustainer: in Him have I placed my trust, and unto Him do I always turn!” [This evidently relates to problems of faith and religious
law. The above verse has provided some of the great exponents of Islamic Law - Ibn Hazm among them - with one of the main arguments
against the acceptance of deductions by analogy (qiyas) as a means to “establish” points of religious law not formulated as such - i.e., the
self-evident wording of the Quran and, by obvious implication, of the Prophet’s commandments. This is the meaning of the phrase “on
whatever you may differ; the verdict thereon rests with God”. See 5:101 below.]
(5) REASON
According to the Tradition, when Prophet Muhammad appointed Muadh as governor of Yemen he asked Muadh: “According to what will
you judge?” Muadh replied, “According to the Quran.” Then the Prophet asked: “And if you find nothing therein?” Muadh replied,
“According to the Sunnah of the Prophet.” The Prophet asked: “And if you find nothing therein?” Muadh replied, “Then I will exert
myself to form my own judgment.” The Prophet was pleased with his reply. One of the great Islamic scholars, philosophers and theologian,
al-Ghazzali, wrote: “The noblest sciences are those in which reason and evidence are married and in which conclusions based on reason
accompany those based on revelation. The science of Fiqh is one of these sciences. It draws equally from the purity of revelation and the
best of reason. Yet, it does not rely purely on reason in a way that would be unacceptable to revealed law, nor is it based simply on the kind
of blind acceptance that would not be supported by reason.”
The shariah remains, however, an ideal for all Muslims everywhere, and is certainly one of the sources of their unity. Islamic states must
evolve single comprehensive Islamic laws applicable to all Muslims. In formulating new laws, three key principles should be used. (1)
Laws regarding morality should be based on the Quranic and Prophet’s teaching. (2) Any law contrary to the spirit of the Quran will be
unacceptable. This will prevent pre-marital sex, adultery, gambling, homosexual unions, pornography, use of alcohol etc., from becoming
the norm of the society. (3) Laws relating to matters not dealt with in the Quran must satisfy the criteria of the common good of the society
and provide equal justice for all.
SCHOOLS OF LAW
During the first two hundred years of Islamic history there appeared a number of schools of law which flourished for a time, and most of
which then disappeared. Four of these schools, however, attracted a large following and have survived to the present. The formation of the
four schools belongs to the third Islamic century, when the great controversies of the early days had lost their heat, and when a broad
agreement began to emerge on the community’s major problems. This was also the time when the Six Sound Books of hadith were
assembled, and when the structure of the Ashari theology was fixed.
Each of the four schools is associated with the name of a prominent jurist whose teachings it has adopted. (1) Al-Shafii, mentioned above,
was one of these. His doctrines are observed by the people of Egypt, Indonesia, East Africa and Syria. (2) The largest number of adherents
belongs to the school of Abu Hanifah (died AD 767), an Iraqi jurist, whose followers are drawn from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey,
Afghanistan, and Central Asia. (3) Malik ibn Anas, the traditionalist of Medina, was the founder of the third school, and the Maliki law is
authoritative for most of the people of North and West Africa. (4) Both the smallest and the strictest of the madhahib is that of Ahmad ibn
Hanbal, which at present is confined to Arabia where its uncompromising traditionalism has appealed to the puritanical Wahhabi sect.
There is little difference among the schools of law except in matters of detail, and all of them are considered acceptable by Sunni Muslims.
Muslims of the Shiah sect do not follow one of the four ‘orthodox’ schools, but have a law of their own. Again, this law differs from that of
the Sunni schools only in details.
UNIFORM ISLAMIC LEGAL SYSTEM
Individuals, are expected to attach themselves to one of the schools and follow its teachings exclusively. It is sometimes permissible also,
under special circumstances, for a jurist of one school to adopt a ruling from another, but the practice is generally frowned upon. This
exclusive attachment to one school of thought is clearly an un-Islamic practice of doctrine of taqlid (blindly following forefather’s religion
or religious scholars). The unquestioning acceptance of one of the Schools of Law run counter to the Quranic teachings, as these schools of
thoughts are merely the opinions of mortal human beings, albeit some of them were great scholars. Having four or five different sets of
laws for Sunnis and Shia break the unity and brotherhood of Islam and legitimize as well as institutionalize sectarianism, which is a sin.
(2:168-171) O mankind! Partake of what is lawful and good on earth, and follow not Satan’s footsteps: for, verily, he is your open
foe, and bids you only to do evil, and to commit deeds of abomination, and to attribute unto God something of which you have no
knowledge. [This refers to an arbitrary attribution to God of commandments or prohibitions in excess of what has been clearly ordained by
Him. Some of the commentators (e.g., Muhammad Abduh) include within this expression the innumerable supposedly “legal” injunctions,
which, without being clearly warranted by the wording of the Quran or an authentic Tradition, have been obtained by individual Muslim
scholars through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as “God’s ordinances”. In verses 2:165-167 the Quran speaks of
those “who choose to believe in beings that supposedly rival God”: and this implies also a false attribution, to those beings, of a right to
issue quasi-religious ordinances of their own, as well as an attribution of religious validity to customs sanctioned by nothing but ancient
usage.] But when they are told, “Follow what God has bestowed from on high,” some answer, “Nay, we shall follow [only] that
which we found our forefathers believing in and doing.” Why, even if their forefathers did not use their reason at all, and were
devoid of all guidance? And so, the parable of those who are bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the
shepherd’s cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use
their reason. [This is a very free rendering of the elliptic sentence which, literally, reads thus: “The parable of those who are bent on
denying the truth is as that of him who cries unto what hears nothing but a cry and a call.” This expression is mostly used to describe the
inarticulate cry with which the shepherd drives his flock.]
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC LAWS
SHARIAH DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-MUSLIM
See below under stoning to death for the crime of adultery, where a Jewish couple is punished according to the laws of Torah. See, also
under freedom of religion in the previous chapter.
CONCEPT OF LAWFUL AND FORBIDDEN
(10:57-60) O mankind! There has now come unto you an admonition from your Sustainer, and a cure for all [the ill] that may be in
men’s hearts, and guidance and grace unto all who believe [in Him]. [I.e., a remedy for all that is contrary to truth and moral good.]
Say: “In [this] bounty of God and in His grace - in this, then, let them rejoice: it is better than all [the worldly wealth] that they
may amass!” Say: “Have you ever considered all the means of sustenance which God has bestowed upon you from on high [This
connects with the statement, in verse 57, that the Quran offers to man a complete guidance towards the good life and spiritual fulfillment in
this world, and happiness in the life to come. The term rizq connotes all that may be good and useful to man, be it of a physical nature
(means of sustenance) or belonging to the realm of the mind (like reason, knowledge, etc.) or of the spirit (like faith, kindness, patience,
etc.). Thus, it applies exclusively to positive, beneficial means of sustenance, and never to things or phenomena which are morally
reprehensible and/or physically or socially injurious.] - and which you thereupon divide into ‘things forbidden’ and ‘things lawful’?”
[Lit., “and thereupon you have made some of it forbidden (haram) and some of it lawful (halal)”. The fact that it is God who has bestowed
upon you from on high - i.e., has willed that man should make use of - all that can be qualified as rizq, automatically makes all its
manifestations lawful. In accordance with the doctrine that everything which has not been expressly forbidden by the Quran or the explicit
teachings of the Prophet is eo ipso lawful, this verse takes a clear-cut stand against all arbitrary prohibitions invented by man or artificially
deduced from the Quran or the Prophet’s sunnah. In its wider sense, the above verse relates to people who refuse to be guided by revelation
and prefer to follow nothing but conjecture.] Say: “Has God given you leave [to do this] - or do you, perchance, attribute your own
guesswork to God?” But what do they think - they who attribute their own lying inventions to God - [what do they think will
happen to them] on the Day of Resurrection? Behold, God is indeed limitless in His bounty unto men - but most of them are
ungrateful.
ISLAMIC LAW AND LEGAL HAIR SPLITTING
(5:101-102) O you who have attained to faith! Do not ask about matters which, if they were to be made manifest to you [in terms of
law], might cause you hardship; [This statement implies that the believers should not try to deduce additional laws from the injunctions
clearly laid down as such by the Quran or by the Prophet, since this might cause you hardship - that is, might impose additional burdens on
the believers above and beyond anything that has been stipulated in terms of law in the Quran or in the authentic commandments of the
Prophet. On the basis of this verse, some of the greatest Muslim scholars have concluded that Islamic Law, in its entirety, consists of no
more than the clear-cut injunctions forthcoming from the self-evident wording of the Quran and the Prophet’s commandments, and that,
consequently, it is not permissible to extend the scope of such self-evident ordinances by means of subjective methods of deduction. This,
of course, does not prevent the Muslim community from evolving, whenever necessary, any amount of additional, temporal legislation in
accordance with the spirit of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet: but it must be clearly understood that such additional legislation
cannot be regarded as forming part of Islamic Law (the shariah) as such.] for, if you should ask about them while the Quran is being
revealed, they might [indeed] be made manifest to you [as laws]. [An illustration of this problem has been provided in the following
authentic Tradition. In one of his sermons, the Prophet said: “O my people! God has ordained the pilgrimage (al-hajj) for you; therefore
perform it.” Thereupon somebody asked, “Every year, O Apostle of God?” The Prophet remained silent; and the man repeated his question
twice. Then the Prophet said: “Had I answered yes, it would have become incumbent on you to perform the pilgrimage every year: and,
indeed, it would have been beyond your ability to do so. Do not ask me about matters which I leave unspoken: for, behold, there were
people before you who went to their doom because they had put too many questions to their prophets and thereupon disagreed about their
teachings. Therefore, if I command you anything, do of it as much as you are able to do; and if I forbid you anything, abstain from it.”
Discussing this Tradition, Ibn Hazm observes: “It circumscribes all the principles of religious law from the first to the last - namely: what
the Prophet has left unspoken - neither ordering nor forbidding it - is allowed, that is, neither forbidden nor obligatory; whatever he ordered
is obligatory, and whatever he forbade is unlawful (haram); and whatever he ordered us to do is binding on us to the extent of our ability
alone”. It should be borne in mind that the term “the Prophet” comprises, in this context, the Quran as well, since it was through the
Prophet that the Quranic message was communicated to mankind.] God has absolved [you from any obligation] in this respect: for God
is much-forgiving, forbearing. [I.e., by leaving certain matters unspoken, God has left them to man’s discretion, thus enabling him to act
in accordance with his conscience and the best interests of the community.] People before your time have indeed asked such questions -
and in result thereof have come to deny the truth. [Many of our jurists have, by their subjective deductions, unduly widened the range of
man’s religious obligations, thus giving rise to the very difficulties and complications which the clear wording of the Quran had put an end
to; and this has led to the abandonment, by many individual Muslims as well as by their governments, of Islamic Law in its entirety.] (See
chapter on Moses about story of sacrifice of cow and legal hair splitting)
PUNISHMENT
DIVINE PUNISHMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED BY HUMANS
While traveling with his companions, the Prophet came across a pile of ants which was burnt. He asked who has burnt this. His
companions replied that we did. The Prophet said, “He should not punish with the fire except by the Lord of fire.”
FLEXIBILITY IN PUNISHMENT
According to the Quran death penalty is prescribed for the crime of murder only. However, the Prophet extended death penalty to include
the crime of treason, as in case of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah. For the punishment of the crime of adultery, see below. Just as many
Islamic doctrines are flexible and wide in scope; punishment for crimes is also flexible based upon the intent behind the crime. Punishment
for murder can range from death penalty to monetary compensation for the victim’s family. Stealing can be punished with cutting of a hand
or forgiveness if the defendant stole because his family was hungry. The judge has wide latitude and can render punishment which fits the
crime.
DEATH PENALTY IN THE BIBLE
According to chapter of Exodus, death penalty can be imposed if:
• Whoever willfully attacks a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
• Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
• Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all congregations shall stone him. It is ironic that in some
theocratic Islamic states there is death penalty for blasphemy, when the Western countries have long abandoned such outdated law,
which is contrary to freedom of religion.
• If any man takes a wife, goes into her and found her to not virgin. Then the father and the mother of the young women shall bring
out the “token of her virginity.” But if the token of virginity are not found, then she is stoned to death. There is also death penalty
for homosexuality.
If the death penalty is applied as envisaged in the Bible, perhaps most human beings will be dead. On the other hand, Quran enjoins death
penalty only for murder and even then it encourages the victim’s family to accept compensation rather than putting murderer to death. For
eye for an eye can only lead to more blindness.
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT: The benefit of doubt goes to the accused under Islamic law. The holy Prophet said: “Avoid punishments
wherever you find scope for it. Try to avoid punishing the Muslims wherever possible and if there is a way for an accused to escape
punishment, let him off. An error of judgment in letting off an accused is better than in punishing him.”
NOT GUILTY MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS INNOCENT: If a court finds a defendant “not guilty” of the charge brought
against him, it does not automatically mean that the defendant is innocent. There may be lack of evidence to prove guilt beyond the
reasonable doubt because the defendant may be cunning enough not to leave much evidence at the crime scene, the police investigators
missed important clues, or eyewitnesses refrained to testify.
IMMORAL SEXUAL CONDUCT, FORNICATION AND ADULTERY
LEWD AND INDECENT BEHAVIOR
(4:15-16) And as for those of your women who become guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from among you who have
witnessed their guilt; [Some of the commentators attribute to the term fahishah, here rendered as “immoral conduct” the meaning of
adultery or fornication and are, consequently, of the opinion that this verse has been abrogated by 24:2, which lays down the punishment of
one hundred stripes for each of the guilty parties. This unwarranted assumption must, however, be rejected. Quite apart from the
impossibility of admitting that any passage of the Quran could have been abrogated by another of its passages (see 2:106), the expression
fahishah does not, by itself, connote illicit sexual intercourse: it signifies anything that is grossly immodest, unseemly, lewd, indecent or
abominable in word or in deed, and is by no means restricted to sexual transgressions. Read in this context and in conjunction with 24:2,
this expression obviously denotes here immoral conduct not necessarily amounting to what is termed zina, i.e., adultery or fornication, and
therefore redeemable by sincere repentance in contrast to a proven act of zina, which is punishable by flogging. It is noteworthy that in all
cases of alleged sexual transgressions or misbehavior the Quran stipulates the direct evidence of four witnesses instead of the two required
in all other judicial cases, as a sine qua non of conviction. For the reasons underlying this injunction, as well as for its judicial implications,
see 24:4.] and if these bear witness thereto, confine the guilty women to their houses until death takes them away or God opens for
them a way [through repentance]. And punish [thus] both of the guilty parties; but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave
them alone: for, behold, God is an acceptor of repentance, a dispenser of grace.
PUNISHMENT FOR FORNICATION AND ADULTERY
(17:32) And do not commit adultery- for, behold, it is an abomination and an evil way.
(24:1-3) A surah [is this] which We have bestowed from on high, and which We have laid down in plain terms; and in it have We
bestowed from on high messages which are clear [in themselves], so that you might keep [them] in mind. [I.e., “the injunctions
whereof We have made self-evident by virtue of their wording”. Thus, it would seem that the special stress on God’s having laid down this
surah in plain terms is connected with the gravity of the injunctions spelt out in the sequence: in other words, it implies a solemn warning
against any attempt at widening or re-defining those injunctions by means of deductions, inferences or any other considerations
unconnected with the plain wording of the Quran.] As for the adulteress and the adulterer- flog each of them with a hundred stripes,
and let not compassion with them keep you from [carrying out] this law of God, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day; [The
term zina signifies voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to one another, irrespective of whether one or
both of them are married to other persons or not: hence, it does not - in contrast with the usage prevalent in most Western languages -
differentiate between the concepts of “adultery” (i.e., sexual intercourse of married man with a woman other than his wife, or of a married
woman with a man other than her husband) and “fornication” (i.e., sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons). For the sake of
simplicity zina is rendered throughout as “adultery” and the person guilty of it as “adulterer” or “adulteress”, respectively. The above verse
abrogates the Biblical punishment of stoning to death for the crime of adultery and replaces it with flogging. ] and let a group of the
believers witness their chastisement. [The number of those to be present has been deliberately left unspecified, thus indicating that while
the punishment must be given publicity, it need not be made a public spectacle.] [Both are equally guilty:] the adulterer couples with
none other than an adulteress - that is, a woman who accords [to her own lust] a place side by side with God; [The term mushrik
(fem. mushrikah), which normally signifies a person who associates in his or her mind all manner of imaginary deities or forces with God,
or who believes that any created being has a share in His qualities or powers, is here evidently used in the widest metaphorical sense of this
term, denoting one who accords to his or her desires a supremacy which is due to God alone, and thus blasphemes against the principles of
ethics and morality enjoined by Him.] and with the adulteress couples none other than an adulterer - that is, a man who accords [to
his own lust] a place side by side with God: and this is forbidden unto the believers. [Some of the commentators understand this
passage in the sense of an injunction: “The adulterer shall not marry any but an adulteress or a mushrikah: and as for the adulteress, none
shall marry her but an adulterer or a rnushrik. This interpretation is objectionable on several counts: firstly, the Quran does not ever
countenance the marriage of a believer, however great a sin he or she may have committed, with an unbeliever (in the most pejorative sense
of this term); secondly, it is a fundamental principle of Islamic Law that once a crime has been expiated by the transgressor’s undergoing
the ordained legal punishment (in this case, a hundred stripes), it must be regarded, insofar as the society is concerned, as atoned for and
done with; and, lastly, the construction of the above passage is clearly that of a statement of fact (Razi), and cannot be interpreted as an
injunction. On the other hand, since adultery is an illicit sexual union, the verb yankihu, which appears twice in this passage, cannot have
the customary, specific meaning of “he marries” but be understood in its general sense - applicable to both lawful and unlawful sexual
intercourse - namely, “he couples with”. It is in this sense that the great commentator Abu Muslim (as quoted by Razi) explains the above
verse, which stresses the fact that both partners are equally guilty as they commit their sin consciously - implying that neither of them can
cause himself or herself on the ground of having been merely seduced.]
STONING TO DEATH FOR ADULTERY
The Biblical punishment of stoning to death was introduced to early Muslims by the Jews of Medina as the following incident illustrates. It
was reported that the Jews of Medina came to the Prophet and stated that a man and a woman from among them had committed adultery.
The Prophet asked them. “What is the legal punishment for this sin in your book (Torah)?” They replied, “Our priests have innovated the
punishment by blackening the faces of the accused with charcoal and then parade them in public.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “O Allah’s
apostle, tell them to bring the Torah. The Torah was brought and then one of the Jews put his hand over the verse regarding stoning to death
for adultery and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that Ibn Salam said to the Jew, “Lift up your hand.” Behold! The
Biblical verse was under his hand. So the Prophet ordered that the two be stoned to death.” The lesson deduced from this Tradition is that
the non-Muslims under Islamic rules should be governed by their respective laws and not by the laws of the Islam.
The most important case of adultery reported in Hadith is that of Maiz bin Malik Aslami. He confessed his sin before the Holy Prophet,
who turned his face away from him and said, “Go back and pray to God for forgiveness.” Maiz confessed to committing adultery four
times before the Holy Prophet took any action. Even then he said, “Had you kept it secret, it would have been better for you. Then he
ordered Maiz to be stoned to death. During stoning, Maiz tried to escape but was unsuccessful. Afterwards when this incident was reported
to the Holy Prophet, he said: “Why did you not let him go. Had you brought him to me, he might have repented and God might have
accepted his repentance.”
There is not a single verse in the Quran where the penalty of “stoning to death” is prescribed for any sin or crime. On the other hand, there
are several incidences recorded in Hadith literature where the Prophet ordered stoning to death for the crime of adultery and hundred lashes
for fornication. It is inconceivable that that the Prophet would reject divine will and dictate his own. This apparent discrepancy between the
Quranic verse and Traditions can be explained by the timing of the Surah Nur. If the penalty of stoning to death was proclaimed by the
Prophet prior to the revelation of twenty-fourth Surah (Nur) then it become null and void the day Surah Nur was revealed. Here is an
interesting narration from the book of Hadith from al-Bukhari: Narrated by Ash Shaibani: I asked Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, “Did God’s
apostle carry out the penalty of stoning to death?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Before the revelation of Surah Nur or after it.?” He replied, “I
don’t know.” (8-824).
In reviewing all the Traditions regarding adultery, it is clear that in almost all the cases there was self-confession by the guilty parties and
therefore punishment for stoning to death was voluntary in nature. In the absence of self-confession, there is a requirement of four
eyewitnesses to prove the crime of adultery or fornication. The holy Prophet said: “Avoid punishments wherever you find scope for it. Try
to avoid punishing the Muslims wherever possible and if there is a way for an accused to escape punishment, let him off.” During the
farewell pilgrimage and in his last public address, the Prophet advocated mercy rather than punishment for the crime of adultery: “O Men,
to you a right belongs with respect to your women and to your women a right with respect to you. It is your right that they not fraternize
with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to commit adultery. But if they do, then God has permitted you to isolate them
within their homes and to chastise them without cruelty.” In the final analysis, the clear injunction of the Quran supersedes all other
authorities. The Quranic punishment by flogging for the crime of fornication and adultery can be viewed as punishment for consensual sex
outside marriage, while harsh punishment should be reserved for the crime of rape or incest.
PENALTY OF FLOGGING
The penalty of flogging should be carried out in such a way that its effect should be confined to the skin only and should not reach the flesh
under it. The flogging that cause deep wound is against Islamic law. If a guilty person is suffering from some disease or he is too old, it is
enough to strike him once with a branch of hundred twigs in order to meet the requirement of the law. When a sick man, who committed
fornication, was brought to the Holy Prophet, he commanded: “Take a branch of the palm tree with hundred twigs and strike him once and
for all.” In view of strict proof necessary to establish the offence of adultery or fornication and the utmost secrecy with which these crimes
are committed, the penalty of law is largely symbolic as it can hardly be meted out.
RAPE
The requirement of four witnesses to prove fornication or adultery should only be applied in case of consensual sex outside the marriage
and not for the cases of rape. Rapist is not going to commit his crime in the presence of four witnesses and it will be impossible to bring
rapist to justice. In the case of rape, all modern physical and medical evidence should be used to prosecute these cases. If rape is proven
beyond the reasonable doubt then rapist should receive severe sentence because rapists and child molesters seldom change their ways and
they present a constant danger to the society.
FALSE ACCUSATION OF ADULTERY BY THE THIRD PARTY
(24:4-5) And as for those who accuse chaste women [of adultery], [The term rnuhsanat denotes literally “women who are fortified
against unchastity”, i.e., by marriage and/or faith and self-respect, implying that, from a legal point of view, every woman must he
considered chaste unless a conclusive proof to the contrary is produced. The passage relates to women other than the accusers own wife, for
in the latter case - as shown in verses 6-9 - the law of evidence and the consequences are different.] and then are unable to produce four
witnesses [in support of their accusation], flog them with eighty stripes and ever after refuse to accept from them any testimony -
since it is they, they that are truly depraved! - [This injunction applies also to cases where a woman accuses a man of illicit sexual
intercourse, and is subsequently unable to prove her accusation legally. The severity of the punishment to be meted out in such cases, as
well as the requirement of four witnesses - instead of the two that Islamic Law regards as sufficient in all other criminal and civil suits - is
based on the imperative necessity of preventing slander and off-hand accusations. As laid down in several authentic sayings of the Prophet,
the evidence of the four witnesses must be direct, and not merely circumstantial: in other words, it is not sufficient for them to have
witnessed a situation which made it evident that sexual intercourse was taking or had taken place: they must have witnessed the sexual act
as such, and must be able to prove this to the entire satisfaction of the judicial authority. Since such a complete evidence is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to obtain, it is obvious that the purpose of the above Quranic injunction is to preclude, in practice, all third-party
accusations relating to illicit sexual intercourse - for, “man has been created weak” (4:28) - and to make a proof of adultery dependent on a
voluntary, faith-inspired confession of the guilty parties themselves.] excepting [from this interdict] only those who afterwards repent
and made amends: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [I.e., who publicly withdraw their accusation after having
suffered the punishment of flogging - which, being a legal right of the wrongly accused person, cannot be obviated by mere repentance and
admission of guilt. Thus, the above-mentioned exemption relates only to the interdict on giving testimony and not to the punishment by
flogging.]
WHEN HUSBAND ACCUSES HIS WIFE OF ADULTERY (oath of condemnation)
(24:6-10) And as for those who accuse their own wives [of adultery], but have no witnesses except themselves, let each of these
[accusers] call God four times to witness that he is indeed telling the truth, and the fifth time, that God’s curse be upon him if he is
telling a lie. But [as for the wife, all] chastisement shall be averted from her by her calling God four times to witness that he is
indeed telling a lie, and the fifth [time], that God’s curse be upon her if he is telling the truth, [Thus, the husband’s accusation is to be
regarded as proven if the wife refuses to take an oath to the contrary, and disproved if she solemnly sets her word against his. This
procedure, which is called lian (oath of condemnation), leaves the question of guilt legally undecided, both parties are absolved of all the
legal consequences otherwise attending upon adultery - an unproven accusation of adultery - the only consequence being a mandatory
divorce.] And were it not for God’s favor upon you, [O man,] and His grace, and that God is a wise acceptor of repentance! [This
sentence is deliberately left incomplete, leaving it to man to imagine what would have happened to individual lives and to society if God
had not ordained all the above-mentioned legal and moral safeguards against possibly false accusations, or if He had made a proof of
adultery dependent on mere circumstantial evidence. This idea is further elaborated in verses 14-15.]
FALSE SLANDER AGAINST AISHAH AND INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
According to all the commentators, the passage comprising verses 11-20 below relates to an incident, which occurred on the Prophet’s
return from the campaign against the tribe of Mustaliq in the year 5 H. The Prophet’s wife Aishah, who had accompanied him on that
expedition, was inadvertently left behind when the Muslims struck camp before dawn. After having spent several hours alone, she was
found by one of the Prophet’s Companions, who led her to the next halting-place of the army. This incident gave rise to malicious
insinuations of misconduct on the part of Aishah; but these rumors were short-lived, and her innocence was established beyond all doubt.
As is the case with all Quranic allusions to historical events, this one, too, is primarily meant to bring out an ethical proposition valid for all
times and all social circumstances that the benefit of the doubt belongs to the accused and the person is innocent until proven guilty. This is
the reason why the grammatical construction of this passage is such that the past-tense verbs occurring in verses 11-16 and should be -
understood as denoting the present tense.] (24:11-26) Verily, numerous among you are those who would falsely accuse others of
unchastity: [but, O you who are thus wronged,] deem it not a bad thing for you: nay, it is good for you! [I.e., in the sight of God: for,
the unhappiness caused by unjust persecution confers - as does every undeserved and patiently borne suffering - a spiritual merit on the
person thus afflicted. The saying of the Prophet: “Whenever a believer is stricken with any hardship, or pain, or anxiety, or sorrow, or harm,
or distress - even if it be a thorn that has hurt him - God redeems thereby some of his failings.”] [As for the slanderers,] unto every one of
them [will be accounted] all that he has earned by [thus] sinning; and awesome suffering awaits any of them who takes it upon
himself to enhance this [sin]! [I.e., by stressing certain circumstantial details or aspects of the case, in order to make the slanderous,
unfounded allegation more believable.] Why do not the believing men and women, whenever such [a rumor] is heard, [The pronoun
“you” indicating here the community as a whole.] think the best of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”? [A general
principle was laid down that relations in a community should be based on good faith and not on suspicion: everyone should be treated as
innocent unless he or she is proven to be guilty.] why do they not [demand of the accusers that they] produce four witnesses to prove
their allegation? - for, if they do not produce such witnesses, it is those [accusers] who, in the sight of God, are liars indeed! And
were it not for God’s favor upon you, [O men,] and His grace in this world and in the life to come, awesome suffering would indeed
have afflicted you in result of all [the calumny] in which you indulge, [For yourselves and your whole society. With this and the next
verse the discourse returns to, and elaborates, the idea touched upon in verse 10.] when you take it up with your tongues, uttering with
your mouths something of which you have no knowledge, and deeming it a light matter whereas in the sight of God it is an awful
thing! And [once again]: Why do you not say, whenever you hear such [a rumor], “It does not behove us to speak of this, O Thou
who art limitless in Thy glory: this is an awesome calumny”? [The interjection, “O Thou who art limitless in Thy glory” stresses here
the believers moral duty to bethink himself of God whenever he is tempted to listen to, or to repeat, a calumny, since every such rumor
must be considered a calumny unless its truth is legally proved.] God admonishes you [hereby] lest you ever revert to the like of this
[sin], if you are [truly] believers; for God makes [His] messages clear unto you - and God is all-knowing, Wise! Verily, as for those
who like [to hear] foul slander spread against [any of] those who have attained to faith [The term fahishah signifies anything that is
morally reprehensible or abominable: hence, “immoral conduct” in the widest sense of this expression. In the above context it refers to
unfounded or unproven allegations of immoral conduct, in other words, “foul slander”.] grievous suffering awaits them in this world
[I.e., the legal punishment as stipulated in verse 4 of his surah.] and in the life to come: for God knows [the full truth], whereas you
know [it] not. [This Quranic warning against slander and, by obvious implication, against any attempt at seeking out other people’s faults
finds a clear echo in several well-authenticated sayings of the Prophet: (1) “Beware of all guesswork about one another, for, behold, all
such guesswork is most deceptive; and do not spy upon one another and do not try to bare other people’s failings”; (2) “Do not hurt those
who have surrendered themselves to God and do not impute evil to them and do not try to uncover their nakedness, i.e., their faults for,
behold, if anyone tries to uncover his brother’s nakedness, God will uncover his own nakedness on the Day of judgment”; (3) “Never does
a believer draw a veil over the nakedness of the other believer without God’s drawing a veil over his own nakedness on Resurrection Day”.
All these injunctions have received their seal, as it were, in the Quranic exhortation: “Avoid most guesswork [about one another] – for,
behold, some of [such] guesswork is [in itself] a sin” (49:12).] And were it not for God’s favor upon you and His grace, and that God
is compassionate, a dispenser of grace! [See verse 10 above for explanation as this sentence is deliberately left incomplete.] O You who
have attained to faith! Follow not Satan’s footsteps: for he who follows Satan’s footsteps [will find that], behold, he enjoins but
deeds of abomination and all that runs counter to reason. [In this context, the term al-munkar has apparently the same meaning as in
16:90 since, as the sequence shows, it clearly relates to the unreasonable self-righteousness of so many people who “follow Satan’s
footsteps” by imputing moral failings to others and forgetting that it is only due to Gods grace that man, in his inborn weakness, can ever
remain pure.] And were it not for God’s favor upon you and His grace, not one of you would ever have remained pure. For [thus it
is:] God who causes whomever He wills to grow in purity: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing. Hence, [even if they have been
wronged by slander,] let not those of you who have been graced with God’s favor and ease of life ever become remiss in helping [the
erring ones among] their near of kin, and the needy, and those who have forsaken the domain of evil for the sake of God, but let
them pardon and forbear. [For,] do you not desire that God should forgive you your sins, seeing that God is much-forgiving, a
dispenser of grace? [It is generally assumed that this verse refers to Abu Bakr, who swore that he would never again help his poor relative,
the muhajir Mistah (whom he used to support until then) after the latter had taken part in slandering Abu Bakr’s daughter, Aishah (see verse
11 above). However, the ethical purport of the above verse is timeless and, therefore, independent of the fact with which it appears to be
historically linked. (This view finds additional support in the use of the plural form throughout the above passage.) The call to “pardon and
forbear” is fully consonant with the Quranic principle of countering evil with good (see 13:22).] [But,] verily, those who [falsely, and
without repentance,] [The absence of repentance is incontrovertibly implied in the condemnation expressed in the sequence, since the
Quran makes it clear in many places that God always accepts a sinner’s sincere repentance.] accuse chaste women who may have been
unthinkingly careless but have remained true to their faith, [I.e., virtuous women who thoughtlessly expose themselves to situations on
which a slanderous construction may be put.] shall be rejected [from God’s grace] in this world as well as in the life to come: and
awesome suffering awaits them on the Day when their own tongues and hands and feet will bear witness against them by [recalling]
all that they did! On that day God will pay them in full their just due, and they will come to know that God alone is the Ultimate
Truth, manifest, and manifesting [the true nature of all that has ever been done]. [Regarding the double meaning (“manifest” and
“manifesting”) inherent in the adjective mubin. In this particular instance, the active form of mubin (“manifesting”) apparently relates to
Gods revelation, on Judgment Day, of the true nature of man’s actions and, thus, of the enormity of the sin to which this passage refers.] [In
the nature of things,] corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good
men, and good men, for good women. [Since God is aware that] these are innocent of all that evil tongues may impute to them,
[Innocent of all that they, i.e., the slanderers may say] forgiveness of sins shall be theirs, and a most excellent sustenance! [The
reference to God’s “forgiveness of sins” is obviously meant to stress the innate weakness of man’s nature, which makes him prone to
sinning, however good and pure he may be (4:28).]
OATH
OATH IS A PLEDGE TO GOD
(16:91-92) And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by a pledge, [The clause “whenever you bind yourselves
by a pledge” has a twofold meaning: in the first instance (as in 13:20) it refers to the spiritual, moral and social obligations arising from
one’s faith in God; and, secondly, it applies to all pledges or promises given by one person to another - for every pledge given by man to
man represents, in its essence, a pledge to God. It is to this second aspect of man’s “bond with God’’ that the sequence refers.] and do not
break [your] oaths after having [freely] confirmed them [I.e., as distinct from oaths “uttered without thought” (see 2:225).] and having
called upon God to be witness to your good faith: behold, God knows all that you do. Hence, be not like her who breaks and com-
pletely untwists the yarn which she [herself] has spun and made strong - [be not like this by] using your oaths as a means of
deceiving one another, simply because some of you may be more powerful than others. [This relates to declarations and false promises
made out of fear.]By all this, God but puts you to a test - and [He does it] so that on Resurrection Day He might make clear unto you all
that on which you were wont to differ. [The differences alluded to here relate to ethical and moral values, regarding the truth and relevance
of which people of various communities and persuasions hold most divergent views. See also 2:113.]
PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING OATH
(16:94-96) And do not use your oaths as a means of deceiving one another - or else [your] foot will slip after having been firm, [i.e.,
you will offend against God after having attained to faith”, because every pledge given by man to man is synonymous with a pledge to
God.] and then you will have to taste the evil [consequences] [i.e., in this world, as the breaking of pledges unavoidably leads to a
gradual disappearance of all mutual trust and, thus, to the decomposition of the social fabric.] of your having turned away from the path
of God, with tremendous suffering awaiting you [in the life to come]. Hence, do not barter away your bond with God for a trifling
gain! Verily, that which is with God is by far the best for you, if you but knew it: all that is with you is bound to come to an end,
whereas that which is with God is everlasting,
WHEN BREAKING OF OATH IS ALLOWED? (Exception to the rule)
(2:224-225) And do not allow your oaths in the name of God to become an obstacle to virtue and God-consciousness and the
promotion of peace between men: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing. [This injunction refers primarily to oaths relating to divorce but
is, nevertheless, general in its import. Thus, there are several authentic Traditions to the effect that the Prophet Muhammad said: “If anyone
takes a solemn oath (that he would do or refrain from doing such-and such a thing), and thereupon realizes that something else would be a
more righteous course, then let him do that which is more righteous, and let him break his oath and then atone for it”. As regards the
method of atonement, see 5:89 below.] God will not take you to task for oaths which you may have uttered without thought, but will
take you to task [only] for what your hearts have conceived [in earnest]: for God is much-forgiving, forbearing.
ATONEMENT FOR BREAKING OF OATH
(5:89) God will not take you to task for oaths which you may have uttered without thought, [This refers primarily to oaths aiming at
denying to oneself something which the Law of Islam does not prohibit (i.e., the good things of life); and, generally, to all oaths uttered
without premeditation, e.g., under the influence of anger (see 2:224-225; also 38:44).] but He will take you to task for oaths which you
have sworn in earnest. Thus, the breaking of an oath must be atoned for by [This possibility of atonement relates only to “oaths uttered
without thought”, and not to deliberate undertakings affecting other persons, which - as has been explicitly stated in the opening sentence
of this surah - a believer is bound to observe faithfully to the best of his ability. Regarding exceptions from this general rule see 2:224.]
feeding ten needy persons with more or less the same food as you are wont to give to your own families, or by clothing them, or by
freeing a human being from bondage; and he who has not the wherewithal shall fast for three days [instead]. This shall be the
atonement for your oaths whenever you have sworn [and broken them]. But be mindful of your oaths! [I.e., do not make them lightly
or often] Thus God makes clear unto you His messages, so that you might have cause to be grateful.
BEARING WITNESS
(4:135) O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God,
even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim
takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. [I.e., do not allow the fact that a man is rich to prejudice you in his favor or against
him, and do not, out of misplaced compassion, favor the poor man at the expense of the truth.] Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest
you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!
(5:8) O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and
never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And
remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.
(6:152-153) When you voice an opinion, be just, even though it be [against] one near of kin. [The phrase “when you voice an opinion”
or “when you speak” applies to expressing an opinion on any subject, whether it concerns one personally or not, but the subsequent
reference to one’s near of kin makes it probable that the above injunction relates, in particular, to the giving of evidence in cases under
dispute.] And [always] observe your bond with God: this has He enjoined upon you, so that you might keep it in mind. And [know]
that this is the way leading straight unto Me: follow it, then, and follow not other ways, lest they cause you to deviate from His way.
[All] this has He enjoined upon you, so that you might remain conscious of Him.
(25:72) And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [Implying that neither do they
themselves ever bear false witness (i.e., in the widest sense of this expression, tell any lie), nor do they knowingly take part in anything that
is based on falsehood.)]
(70:32-33) And who are faithful to their trusts and to their pledges; and who stand firm whenever they bear witness.

MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER

Manslaughter or culpable homicide is the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called “malice aforethought” (an
evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation.
There are two levels of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while
committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving. A
felony, in many common legal systems, is the term for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious
offenses. Crimes which are commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault, arson, burglary, murder
and rape.
(5:32) Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being - unless it be [in punishment] for
murder or for spreading corruption on earth - it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall
be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. [This moral truth alludes here, in its succinct formulation, fully explains the reason
why the story of Cain and Abel is mentioned in this context. The expression “We have ordained unto the children of Israel” does not, of
course, detract from the universal validity of this moral: it refers merely to its earliest enunciation.]
(17:33) And do not take any human beings life - [the life] which God has willed to be sacred - otherwise than in [the pursuit of]
justice. [I.e., in the execution of a legal sentence or in a just war (see 2:190), or in individual, legitimate self-defense.] Hence, if anyone
has been slain wrongfully, We have empowered the defender of his rights [to exact a just retribution]; [This refers to the legal
punishment for homicide, termed qisas (just retribution) and explained in 2:178 below. The term wali (protector or defender of one’s rights)
is usually taken to mean the heir or next of kin of the victim; Zamakhshari, however, observes that it may also apply to the government: an
interpretation which is obviously based on the concept of the government as the “protector” or “defender of the rights” of all its citizens. As
regards the expression “slain wrongfully”, it is obvious that it refers only to cases of willful homicide, since the concept of zulm applies in
the Quran exclusively to intentional and never to accidental wrongdoing.] but even so, let him not exceed the bounds of equity in
[retributive] killing. [Thus, the defender of the victim’s rights (in this case, a court of justice) is not only not entitled to impose a capital
sentence on any but the actual murderer or murderers, but may also, if the case warrants it, concede mitigating circumstances and refrain
from capital punishment altogether.] [And as for him who has been slain wrongfully] behold, he is indeed succored [by God] [I.e., he is
avenged in this world by the retribution exacted from his murderer, and in the life to come, blessed by the special grace which God bestows
on all who have been slain without any legal or moral justification. Some of the commentators, however, relate the pronoun “he” to the
defender of the victim’s rights, respectively, to the latter’s heir or next of kin, and explain the above phrase as meaning: he is sufficiently
helped by the law of just retribution (qisas) and should not, therefore, demand any punishment in excess of what is equitable.]
RETRIBUTION FOR PREMEDITATED MURDER
(2:178-179) O you who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you in cases of killing: the free for the free and the
slave for the slave, and the woman for the woman? [“The Cow” was the first surah revealed in Medina, that is, at the time when the
Muslim community had just become established as an independent social entity. One of the main problems facing any society is the
safeguarding of the lives and the individual security of its members: and so it is understandable that laws relating to homicide and its
punishment are dealt with prominently at this place. As for the term qisas occurring at the beginning of the above passage - it is
synonymous “making a thing equal to another thing”: in this instance, making the punishment equal (or appropriate) to the crime - a
meaning which is best rendered as “just retribution” and not as has been often, and erroneously, done as “retaliation”. The Quran speaks
here of cases of killing in general, including premeditated murder, murder under extreme provocation, culpable homicide, accidental
manslaughter, and so forth. The taking of a life for a life (implied in the term retaliation) would not in every case correspond to the
demands of equity. This has been made clear, for instance, in 4:92, where legal restitution for unintentional homicide is dealt with. Read in
conjunction with the term “just retribution” which introduces this passage, it is clear that the stipulation “the free for the free, the slave for
the slave, the woman for the woman” cannot - and has not been intended to - be taken in its literal, restrictive sense: for this would preclude
its application to many cases of homicide, e.g., the killing of a free man by a slave, or of a woman by a man, or vice-versa. Thus, the above
stipulation must be regarded as an example of the elliptical mode of expression (ijaz) so frequently employed in the Quran, and can have
but one meaning, namely: “if a free man has committed the crime, the free man must be punished; if a slave has committed the crime ...”,
etc. - in other words, whatever the status of the guilty person, he or she (and he or she alone) is to be punished in a manner appropriate to
the crime.] And if something [of his guilt] is remitted to a guilty person by his brother, [There is no linguistic justification for
attributing - as some of the commentators have done - the pronoun “his” to the victim and, thus, for assuming that the expression “brother”
stands for the victim’s family or blood relations. The pronoun “his” refers, unquestionably, to the guilty person; and since there is no reason
for assuming that by “his brother” a real brother is meant, we cannot escape the conclusion that it denotes here “his brother in faith” of his
fellow-man - in either of which terms the whole community is included. Thus, the expression “if something is remitted to a guilty person
by his brother” (i.e., by the community or its legal organs) may refer either to the establishment of mitigating circumstances in a case of
murder, or to the finding that the case under trial falls within the categories of culpable homicide or manslaughter - in which cases no
capital punishment is to be exacted and restitution is to be made by the payment of an indemnity called diyyah (see 4:92) to the relatives of
the victim. In consonance with the often recurring Quranic exhortation to forgiveness and forbearance, the remission mentioned above may
also (and especially in cases of accidental manslaughter) relate to a partial or even total waiving of any claim to indemnification.] this
[remission] shall be adhered to with fairness, and restitution to his fellow-man shall be made in a goodly manner. [The pronoun “to
him”, refers to the brother in faith or fellow-man mentioned earlier in this sentence. The word restitution denotes an act of acquitting
oneself of a duty or a debt, and stands here for the act of legal reparation imposed on the guilty person. This reparation or restitution is to be
made in a goodly manner - by taking into account the situation of the accused and, on the latter’s part, by acquitting himself of his
obligation willingly and sincerely.] This is alleviation from your Sustainer, and an act of His grace. And for him who, none the less,
willfully transgresses the bounds of what is right, there is grievous suffering in store: [I.e., after the meaning of what constitutes just
retribution (qisas) has been made clear in the above ordinance.] for, in [the law of] just retribution, O you who are endowed with
insight, there is life for you, so that you might remain conscious of God! [I.e., there is a safeguard for you, as a community, so that you
might be able to live in security, as God wants you to live. Thus, the objective of qisas is the protection of the society, and not revenge.]
RESTITUTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER
(4:92) And it is not conceivable that a believer should slay another believer, unless it be by mistake. [On the strength of this verse,
some of the Mutazilite scholars are of the opinion that a believer who deliberately kills another believer must be considered an unbeliever.
This does not, of course, apply to the execution of a death sentence passed in due process of law.] And upon him who has slain a believer
by mistake there is the duty of freeing a believing soul from bondage and paying an indemnity to the victim’s relations, unless they
forgo it by way of charity. [I.e., the heirs or dependants of the victim. The freeing of a believing soul from bondage refers in the first
instance to persons who have been taken captive in war (see 8:67 and 58:3.] Now if the slain, while himself a believer, belonged to a
people who are at war with you, [Lit., “who are hostile to you” - implying that they are in an actual state of war.] [the penance shall be
confined to] the freeing of a believing soul from bondage; whereas, if he belonged to a people to whom you are bound by a
covenant, [it shall consist of] an indemnity to be paid to his relations in addition to the freeing of a believing soul from bondage.
[This relates to cases where the victim is a non-Muslim belonging to a people with whom the Muslims have normal, peaceful relations; in
such cases the penalty is the same as that imposed for the killing, under similar circumstances, of a fellow-believer.] And he who does not
have the wherewithal shall fast [instead] for two consecutive months. [This is] the atonement ordained by God: and God is indeed
all-knowing, wise. [I.e., in the way prescribed for fasting during the month of Ramadan (see 2:183-187). This alleviation applies to a
person who cannot afford to pay the indemnity and/or purchase the freedom of a slave, or cannot find a slave to be freed, as may be the
case in our times.]
DELIBERATE MURDER OF FELLOW MUSLIM
(4:93) But whoever deliberately slays another believer, his requital shall be hell, therein to abide; and God will condemn him, and
will reject him, and will prepare for him awesome suffering. [Those who commit murder and get away with it will face awesome
suffering in the life to come.]
DO NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN
(6:151) Do not kill your children for fear of poverty - [for] it is We who shall provide sustenance for you as well as for them; [This
may possibly refer to infanticide and abortions dictated by economic considerations.] and do not commit any shameful deeds, be they
open or secret; and do not take any human being's life - [the life] which God has declared to be sacred - otherwise than in [the
pursuit of] justice: this has He enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason. [And not resort to brute force whenever your
private interests are involved. The expression “otherwise than in the pursuit of justice” refers to the execution of a legal punishment or to
killing in a just - that is, defensive - war, or to individual, legitimate self-defense.]
FORGIVENESS PREFERRED OVER RETRIBUTION
(5:45) And We ordained for them in that [Torah]: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear,
and a tooth for a tooth, and a [similar] retribution for wounds; [See Exodus xxi, 23 ff., where details of the extremely harsh penalties
provided under Mosaic Law are given.] but he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone thereby for some of his past sins. And they
who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed - they, they are the evildoers! [The Pentateuch does not contain this call
to forgiveness which is brought out with great clarity not only in the Quran but also in the teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on
the Mount: and this, read in conjunction with the following verses, would seem to be an allusion to the time-bound quality of Mosaic Law.
Alternatively, the above admonition may have been part of the original teachings of the Torah which have been subsequently corrupted or
deliberately abandoned by its followers, whom the Quran accuses of “distorting the meaning of the revealed words” (see verse 5:41).]
STEALING
RANGE OF PUNISHMENT (Cutting hand or forgiveness)
(5:38-40) Now as for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off the hand of either of them in requital for what they have
wrought, as a deterrent ordained by God: for God is almighty, wise. But as for him who repents after having thus done wrong, and
makes amends, [I.e., by restituting the stolen goods] behold, God will accept his repentance: verily, God is much-forgiving, a dis-
penser of grace. Do you not know that God’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth? He chastises whom He wills, and He
forgives whom He wills: for God has the power to will anything. [The extreme severity of this Quranic punishment can be understood
only if one bears in mind the fundamental principle of Islamic Law that no duty (taklif) is ever imposed on man without his being granted a
corresponding right (haqq); and the term “duty” also comprises, in this context, liability to punishment. Now, among the inalienable rights
of every member of the Islamic society - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - is the right to protection (in every sense of the word) by the
community as a whole. As is evident from innumerable Quranic ordinances as well as the Prophet’s injunctions forthcoming from authentic
Traditions, every citizen is entitled to a share in the community’s economic resources and, thus, to the enjoyment of social security: in other
words, he or she must be assured of an equitable standard of living commensurate with the resources at the disposal of the community. For,
although the Quran makes it clear that human life cannot be expressed in terms of physical existence alone - the ultimate values of life
being spiritual in nature - the believers are not entitled to look upon spiritual truths and values as something that could be divorced from the
physical and social factors of human existence. In short, Islam envisages and demands a society that provides not only for the spiritual
needs of man, but for his bodily and intellectual needs as well. It follows, therefore, that - in order to be truly Islamic - a society (or state)
must be so constituted that every individual, man and woman, may enjoy that minimum of material well-being and security without which
there can be no human dignity, no real freedom and, in the last resort, no spiritual progress: for, there can be no real happiness and strength
in a society that permits some of its members to suffer undeserved want while others have more than they need. If the whole society suffers
privations owing to circumstances beyond its control as happened, for instance, to the Muslim community in the early days of Islam, such
shared privations may become a source of spiritual strength and, through it, of future greatness. But if the available resources of a
community are so unevenly distributed that certain groups within it live in affluence while the majority of the people are forced to use up
all their energies in search of their daily bread, poverty becomes the most dangerous enemy of spiritual progress, and occasionally drives
whole communities away from God-consciousness and into the arms of soul-destroying materialism. It was undoubtedly this that the
Prophet had in mind when he uttered the warning words “Poverty may well turn into a denial of the truth (kufr).” Consequently, the social
legislation of Islam aims at a state of affairs in which every man, woman and child has (a) enough to eat and wear, (b) an adequate home,
(c) equal opportunities and facilities for education, and (d) free medical care in health and in sickness. A corollary of these rights is the right
to productive and remunerative work while of working age and in good health, and a provision (by the community or the state) of adequate
nourishment, shelter, etc. in cases of disability resulting from illness, widowhood, enforced unemployment, old age, or under-age. As
already mentioned, the communal obligation to create such a comprehensive social security scheme has been laid down in many Quranic
verses, and has been amplified and explained by a great number of the Prophet’s commandments. It was the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-
Khattab, who began to translate these ordinances into a concrete administrative scheme but after his premature death, his successors had
neither the vision nor the statesmanship to continue his unfinished work. It is against the background of this social security scheme
envisaged by Islam that the Quran imposes the severe sentence of hand-cutting as a deterrent punishment for robbery. Since, under the
circumstances outlined above, “temptation” cannot be admitted as a justifiable excuse, and since, in the last resort, the entire socio-
economic system of Islam is based on the faith of its adherents, its balance is extremely delicate and in need of constant, strictly-enforced
protection. In a community in which everyone is assured of full security and social justice, any attempt on the part of an individual to
achieve an easy, unjustified gain at the expense of other members of the community must be considered an attack against the system as a
whole, and must be punished as such: and, therefore, the above ordinance which lays down that the hand of the thief shall be cut off. One
must, however, always bear in mind the principle mentioned at the beginning of this note: namely, the absolute interdependence between
man’s rights and corresponding duties (including liability to punishment). In a community or state which neglects or is unable to provide
complete social security for all its members, the temptation to enrich oneself by illegal means often becomes irresistible - and,
consequently, theft cannot and should not be punished as severely as it should be punished in a state in which social security is a reality in
the full sense of the word. If the society is unable to fulfill its duties with regard to every one of its members, it has no right to invoke the
full sanction of criminal law (hadd) against the individual transgressor, but must confine itself to milder forms of administrative
punishment. It was in correct appreciation of this principle that the great Caliph Umar waived the hadd of hand-cutting in a period of
famine which afflicted Arabia during his reign. To sum up, one may safely conclude that the cutting-off of a hand in punishment for theft is
applicable only within the context of an already-existing, fully functioning social security scheme, and in no other circumstances. In the
New Testament, Mark chapter 9:43, Jesus also made a metaphorical reference to cutting of hands, “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it
is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go to hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” For the minor
cases of theft, only light punishment such as jail sentences is indicated. One cannot cut the hand of a thief for stealing an apple; this will
only convert a thief into a beggar. Cutting of hand should only be applied as a last resort in extreme situations with the approval of the
highest court in the land.]
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
In the story of Joseph, the women of Egypt cut their hands when they saw Joseph (12:30-31). The Quran uses similar but not exact same
words in 12:31 and 5:38 for “cutting hands.” The women of Egypt did not sever their hands in the process but merely sliced or cut it. If
5:38 is literally interpreted then both hands of the thief should be cut off because the Arabic “aydiyahuma” is plural of “yad” (hand). The
word “yad” is used in the Quran in its literal and figurative meanings. Examples of figurative meanings of “yad”, denoting power and
possession of resources, are found in 5:64, 38:45. “Yad” is also used to infer someone’s actions and doings (2:195, 22:10). The alternative
explanation is based upon the figurative meaning of “cutting hands” that is depriving thief of his resources in order to compensate the
victim; a similar concept for sparing the murderer’s life for just compensation. Again, in the story of Joseph, who kept his brother
Benjamin, when the stolen King’s cup was found in his possession (12:70-79). This explanation of 5:38 is feasible and the most practical.
DIETARY LAWS
Narrated Aishah: The people said to the Prophet, “O God’s apostle! Here are people who have recently embraced Islam and they bring meat
and we do not know whether they mentioned God’s name while slaughtering the animal or not.” The Prophet said, “You should mention
God’s name and eat.”
LAWFUL FOODS
(5:1) Lawful to you is the [flesh of every] beast that feeds on plants, save what is mentioned to you [hereinafter]. [I.e., in verse 5:3.
Literally, the expression “a beast of the cattle”, since this would obviously be a needless tautology, many commentators incline to the view
that what is meant here is “any beast which resembles domesticated cattle insofar as it feeds on plants and is not a beast of prey”.] Behold,
God ordains in accordance with His will. [I.e., in accordance with a plan of which He alone has full knowledge.] (5:4) They will ask you
as to what is lawful to them. Say: “Lawful to you are all the good things of life.” [The implication is, firstly, that what has been
forbidden does not belong to the category of “the good things of life”, and, secondly, that all that has not been expressly forbidden is
allowed. It is to be noted that the Quran forbids only those things or actions, which are injurious to man physically, morally or socially.]
And as for those hunting animals which you train by imparting to them something of the knowledge that God has imparted to
yourselves - eat of what they seize for you, but mention God’s name over it, and remain conscious of God: verily, God is swift in
reckoning. [Such of the trained beasts of chase, used for hunting - a hound, a falcon, a cheetah, etc]
FOODS OF FOLLOWERS OF BIBLE ALLOWED
(5:5) Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been vouchsafed revelation
aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. [This permission to partake of the food of the followers of other revealed
religions excludes, of course, the forbidden categories of meat enumerated in verse 5:3 above. As a matter of fact, the Law of Moses, too,
forbids them explicitly; and there is no statement whatsoever in the Gospels to the effect that these prohibitions were cancelled by Jesus: on
the contrary, he is reported to have said, “Think not that I have come to destroy the Law (of Moses): I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill” (Matthew v, 17). Thus, the latitude enjoyed by post-Pauline followers of Jesus in respect of food (such as eating pork), does not
correspond to what he himself practiced and enjoined. Although Muslims are allowed to eat kosher meat but conservative Jews will not
consider halal meat from Muslims as kosher because Mosaic laws are far more elaborate, as far as, meat preparation is concerned.]
FRESH WATER-GAME AND SEAFOOD ALLOWED
(5:96) Lawful to you is all water-game, and what the sea brings forth, as a provision for you. [The above ordinance comprises all
water-game, whether derived from seas, rivers, lakes or ponds such as fish and other marine animals which may have been cast forth by the
waves onto the shore. The above verse lays down that all kinds of water-game are lawful to a believer.]
UNLAWFUL FOODS
(2:172-173) O you who have attained to faith! Partake of the good things, which We have provided for you as sustenance, and
render thanks unto God, if it is [truly] Him that you worship. He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of
swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked; [I.e., all that has been dedicated or offered in sacrifice to an
idol or a saint or a person considered to be “divine”. For a more comprehensive enumeration of the forbidden kinds of flesh, see 5:3.] but if
one is driven by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need - no sin shall be upon him: for, behold, God is
much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
(5:3) Forbidden to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been
invoked, and the animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death, or savaged by a beast of
prey, save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive; and [forbidden to you is] all that has been
slaughtered on idolatrous altars. [The altar-stones set up in pre-Islamic times around the Kabah on which the pagan Quraysh used to
sacrifice animals to their idols. Not only sacrificial animals but also such as were destined for common consumption were often slaughtered
there for the sake of a supposed “blessing”.] As for him, however, who is driven [to what is forbidden] by dire necessity and not by an
inclination to sinning - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [This is generally taken to mean in extreme hunger. It
covers here not merely cases of actual, extreme hunger, which makes the eating of otherwise prohibited categories of meat permissible, as
is explicitly stated in 2:173, but also other situations in which overwhelming, extraneous forces beyond a person’s control may compel him,
against his will, to do something that is normally prohibited by Islamic Law - as, for instance, to use intoxicating drugs whenever illness
makes their use imperative and unavoidable.]
(6:145) Say [O Prophet]: “In all that has been revealed unto me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat, if one wants to eat thereof,
unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine - for that, behold, is loathsome - or a sinful offering over which any
name other than God’s has been invoked. But if one is driven by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need -
then [know that], behold, thy Sustainer is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.”
(16:114-117) And so partake of all the lawful, good things, which God has provided for you as sustenance, and render thanks unto
God for His blessings, if it is [truly] Him that you worship. He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine
and that over which any name other than God’s has been invoked; but if one is driven [to it] by necessity - neither coveting it nor
exceeding his immediate need - verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [The above two verses are almost identical with
2:172-173, and ought, therefore, to be read in conjunction with the whole passage of which those two verses form a part. See also 6:145.]
Hence, do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues determine [at your own discretion], “This is lawful and that is forbidden”,
thus attributing your own lying inventions to God: [Regarding the very important problem of an arbitrary determination, based on
subjective preferences, of what is to be considered ethically right or wrong, see surah 2:169.] for, behold, they who attribute their own lying
inventions to God will never attain to a happy state! A brief enjoyment [may be theirs in this world] but grievous suffering awaits
them [in the life to come]!
WHY PORK IS NOT ALLOWED?
Humans are infected with pork tapeworm when they consume undercooked pork containing parasitic cyst. Digestion of eggshell releases a
stage of the parasite that invades the intestine and spread via blood to many tissues, primarily to brain and muscle. The parasitic invasion of
the brain (neurocysticercosis) may cause seizures and brain damage, intellectual deterioration, dementia, etc.
INTOXICANTS, GAMBLING AND FORETELLING FUTURE
(2:219) They will ask you about intoxicants and games of chance, say: “in both there is great evil as well as some benefit for man;
but the evil which they cause is greater than the benefit which they bring.”
(5:3) And [you are forbidden] to seek to learn through divination what the future may hold in store for you: this is sinful conduct.
[This is a reference to the divining-arrows without a point and without feathers used by the pre-Islamic Arabs to find out what the future
might hold in store for them. As is usual with such historical allusions in the Quran, this one, too, is used metonymically: it implies a
prohibition of all manner of attempts at divining or foretelling the future.] (5:90-92) O you who have attained to faith! Intoxicants, and
games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan’s doing: shun it, then, so
that you might attain to a happy state! [Intoxicant denotes every substance the use of which obscures the intellect, i.e., intoxicates.
Hence, the prohibition of intoxicants laid down in this verse comprises not merely alcoholic drinks, but also drugs which have a similar
effect. The only exception from this total prohibition arises in cases of “dire necessity” (in the strictest sense of these words): that is to say,
in cases where illness or a bodily accident makes the administration of intoxicating drugs or of alcohol imperative and unavoidable. As
regards the expression “idolatrous practices”, it is used here metaphorically, and is meant to circumscribe all practices of an idolatrous
nature - like saint-worship, the attribution of magic properties to certain inanimate objects, the observance of all manner of superstitious
taboos, and so forth.] By means of intoxicants and games of chance Satan seeks only to sow enmity and hatred among you, and to
turn you away from the remembrance of God and from prayer. Will you not, then, desist? [A rhetorical question implying the
necessity of desisting, which can be expressed in English only by the use of the negative form?] Hence, pay heed unto God, and pay
heed unto the Apostle, and be ever on your guard [against evil]; and if you turn away, then know that Our Apostle’s only duty is a
clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him]. [This implies that he cannot force people to believe, and cannot, therefore, be held
responsible for their failure to do so.]
(16:67) And [We grant you nourishment] from the fruit of date-palms and vines: from it you derive intoxicants as well as
wholesome sustenance - in this, behold, there is a message indeed for people who use their reason! [The term sakar (lit., “wine” or,
generically, intoxicants) is contrasted here with rizq hasan (wholesome sustenance), thus circumscribing both the positive and the negative
properties and effects of alcohol. Although this surah was revealed about ten years before the Quranic prohibition of intoxicants in 5:90-91,
there is no doubt that their moral condemnation is already implied in the above verse.]
WHY ALCOHOL AND NARCOTICS NOT ALLOWED?
Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant and pharmacologically it can be classified under Schedule II drugs. (Schedule II drugs have
“high abuse potential with severe dependence liability”.) An estimated 22 million Americans abuse drugs, alcohol or both. The incidence of
heavy drinking remains fairly constant at around 10% through the adult life span. Alcoholism is a form of addiction where alcoholics
demonstrate physical dependence on alcohol and experience withdrawal symptoms when they do not drink. Alcoholism has a genetic
component and it often run in families. Perhaps that is the reason the Quran itself does not ordain punishment for drinking, although the
holy Prophet used various mild punishment methods.
ALCOHOL, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
 • Alcohol abuse is a factor in 40% of violent crimes committed in the U.S. Two-third of victims who suffered from domestic
violence reported that alcohol had been a factor. Alcohol abuse has ended more marriages and broken more families than we will
ever know.
• More than a million Americans are arrested each year for driving under the influence (DUI). Drinking and driving claim more than
15000 lives a year in the U.S.
LONG-TERM HEAVY DRINKING
• Long-term heavy drinking increases the risk of developing certain forms of cancer, especially cancer of the esophagus, mouth,
throat and voice box. There is an increase risk of certain cancers, especially breast cancer and liver cancer even with moderate
drinking. People who drink regularly for 20 or more years are at a greater risk of developing colon cancer and those who drink and
smoke have even a greater risk.
• About 10-20% of long term heavy drinkers develop alcoholic cirrhosis or scarring of the liver leading to liver failure and death.
• Long term heavy drinking can lead to pancreatitis, or inflammation of pancreas. This condition is associated with severe
abdominal pain and can be fatal.
• Moderate drinking (no more than one drinks per day for women and two for men) can have beneficial effects on the heart, but
long-term heavy drinking increases the risk for high blood pressure, heart disease and some kinds of stroke.
• Long-tern alcoholism can cause Werniche-Korsakoff syndrome, a brain disease whose symptoms include severe memory loss,
confusion, and visual problems.
ALCOHOL-RELATED BIRTH DEFECTS
Infants born to mothers who drinks can suffer from brain damage. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a pattern of mental and physical defects in
babies born to mothers who drink alcohol during pregnancy.
RISKY BEHAVIORS
Many teenagers and young adult engage in risky behaviors such as sex with multiple partners, use of other illicit drugs, etc., under the
influence of alcohol. There is increased risk of spreading AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in people who abuse alcohol.
Alcohol abuse and its related problems cost society hundreds of billion of dollars annually. In addition to the health-related costs of alcohol
abuse are costs involving the criminal justice system, property losses from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and lost productivity of
victims of alcohol-related crimes and individual imprisoned as a consequence of alcohol-related crimes. It is impossible to measure the cost
of lives lost, broken families and heartaches brought about by alcohol abuse. It is estimated that 60% of American drink alcohol once in a
while and for the majority of people, drinking moderate amount alcohol poses only a slight risk. The benefits of drinking moderate amounts
of alcohol are very few and the impact of alcohol abuse on society at large is enormous. Under the Quranic law, the common good of the
society take precedence over individual right to seek pleasure and that is why alcohol and other narcotics are not allowed under Islamic
law.
PERFECTION OF RELIGIOUS LAWS
(5:3) Today, those who are bent on denying the truth have lost all hope of [your ever forsaking] your religion: do not, then, hold
them in awe, but stand in awe of Me! Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full
measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. [According to all available Traditions based on
the testimony of the Prophet's contemporaries, the above passage - which sets, as it were, a seal on the message of the Quran - was revealed
at Arafat in the afternoon of Friday, the 9th of Dhu‘l-Hijjah, 10 H., eighty-one or eighty-two days before the death of the Prophet. No legal
injunction whatsoever was revealed after this verse: and this explains the reference to God’s having perfected the Faith and bestowed the
full measure of His blessings upon the believers. Man’s self-surrender (Islam) to God is postulated as the basis, or the basic law, of all true
religion. This self-surrender expresses itself not only in belief in Him but also in obedience to His commands: and this is the reason why
the announcement of the completion of the Quranic message is placed within the context of a verse containing the last legal ordinances
ever revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.]